Peter F

and not wanting to lose power is un-natural for Muslims but ok for all other folks? Is that the contention here?

and not wanting to lose power is un-natural because...?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Wilber is correct. If Refining capacity could not keep up with demand then we would see demand outstripping supply wich would mean some of those seeking supply would not get it. The price of oil is being driven up by speculation; investers bailing US$ funds seeking commodity investment due to US$ shrinking interest rates and good ol' knee-jerk panic and bandwaggoning. There is no supply problem yet. Perhaps there will be in the future and the panic is now. This is normal. Suck it up.

Isreal did not declare independance from Muslim authorities. In 1948 Palestine was not under Ottoman rule and hadn't been for 31 years.

Death of those near and dear; humiliation; Those are two that obviously supercede religion when it comes to what motivates people to do what they do. In those two perceptions usually run counter to religion and over-ride it. I believe that to be the case in Palestine/Gaza.

No need to demonize. Muslims aren't filled with homicidal jealousy. Acedemic greatness will not achieve thier aims? Whose aims? What aims? Jordan's aims? Syria's aims? Egypt's aims? Indonesia's aims? Irans aims? Osama bin Laden's aims? Libya's? Iraq's? Turkey's? The Grand Mufti's? Sudan? Afghanistan? The Taliban? Or maybe you mean the aims of Hamas or maybe Palestinians in general or maybe Hezbollah or maybe someone else. To say they all have the same aim and that aim that they all have they are attempting to achieve through belligerence and aggression is obviously not true. So please define whose aim's you are talking about; what those aims are and how acedemic greatness will achieve them and then perhaps we can have a rational discussion on another thread instead of hijacking this one

Ah. So you used Nobel Prizes won by Muslims as the benchmark to show that he should envy Jews. Wouldn't work for me.

C'mon socred. The Nazi's didn't try to show them the door at all. For that to be true they would have evicted the lot of them. But they didn't and they made no attempt to do so. Even when they conquered most of Europe, as Wilbur points out, they made no attempt to do so.

Is this turning into one of those "Muslims are bad...except for the one's who aren't" threads?

I see. Forgive me for blaming the oppressor. I should know better than to blame oppression on the oppressor. Should I feel oppressed in the future I will make sure to tell myself that oppression is a state of mind.Link Thats quite the irrational statement the man just made. The Left are not balanced people yet it is the unbalanced Left that must conclude that they have no greivances and that things are just dandy. One wonders if this turkey thinks the USofA should be a one-party democracy.

Edit: It won't. Must it? End Edit. I couldn't care less about the price. It's the oil companies oil/gas and they can charge whatever they figure people will pay...or possibly whatever price they think the government of the day will let them get away with. The supply of such oil products is what I think a NEP should address. As it is, as I have said, I see no problems with the supply. Should such supply problems become likely, then I think the government would do well to have some sort of program in place which would either stockpile reserves, or have the oil companies stock pile reserves, or ensure that the crucial elements of our economy are supplied prior to allowing exports of any surplus. It may be necessary for the government to artificially set the price of such oil reserves above market price in order for our deeply concerned capitalists to pay attention - but thats the price one pays for an assured supply. Course, that goes against NAFTA, but then I really don't care much for that either.

I wouldn't.

No, not always.

Eyeball mentioned that the bottleneck and resultant price increase in gas is due to NA's inadequate refining. I don't think thats true since there are no lineups at gas stations nor customers being turned away due to lack of supply. Everyone can still fill up thier tanks. I think whats happening is good ol capitalist price setting by whatever the market can bear...and I think the market will bear a hellofalot more. To avoid any forthcoming supply problems I think you are correct - this country will need a NEP.

effeminate liberal is ok with me

White Doors, I am really sickened by your insistance on telling me what I think and hope. Why don't we start a new thread wherein you tell me what I think and hope. Then I'll reply with what I really think I think and hope and you can reply to that by telling me why im llying. You say "Please be honest with yourself"...According to you, (and - hey! - you do know what I think and hope) I will be happy to see the whole endeavour fall around NATO's and Afghani's ears. For then I can say 'See? I was right! And you are wrong! I get to sing the I was Right song!" Are you truly that f'ing shallow? Is that why you hope NATO will win? So you can sing I-was-right-songs? If you're wiling to assign that motive to me then you must find it a reasonable motivation for yourself and others. I suspect you consider me a bleeding-heart lefty whiner overly worried about harming other people. I betcha you wouldn't be surprised if I posted somewhere someday something like "C'mon people...Can't we all just get along?" Well if you do you would be right because thats exactly what I do and think. That being so, do you also suppose I arrived at that postion with the belief that someday it will all come true and we will all just get along? And that, really, the truth of Peter F is that he really couldn't give a shit if we get along or not cause Peter F chose that position because he see's it as a likely outcome and someday he will be able to tut tut and sing "I am right and you are wrong" Grow up. On the other hand, I must admit there is a certain sense of self-satisfaction in singing that song. General Hillier resigning made me want to sing. But I didn't because I also recognize how childish it would be to do so. But who am I to argue with one who knows what I think. I will be honest with myself...you're right; I hope the whole thing becomes a train-wreck; The Taliban rise again more terrible than before; I hope Iraq languishes in murder and mayhem for many years to come. Hope, mind you, actually HOPE those things come about. I would feel so much better. Blow it out your arse.

If you think I'm going to be out there cheerleading you're dreaming. I still think that our governments committment of the CAF to Afghanistan was the stupidest thing they could have done...exception being the pipe dream of saving Darfur. Supporting the mission is just as much a waste of time as not supporting it. In either case the facts on the ground do not change. You're there for the forseeable future with support or without it. Equipment? Sure. Draw up a shopping list with the why's and wherefore's and I'll write a letter. But lets not forget our government committed you to a 'combat' mission because it was a combat mission and not a wimpy Northern Afghanistan peacekeeping mission. Our government wanted to make a mark - be taken seriously - get a seat at the table. The price of that seat is blood; Canadian blood. If it was up to me we wouldn't be hankering after a seat at that table. But it isn't and we are and to many thats a good thing. So lets not create false hope that new and better equipment will stop Canadians being killed. That, after all is up to the Taliban.

So now Dogs are necessary to stop drug trafficing? Anything less is sanctioning of drug dealing? You're an idiot.

You can't be pulled out. There's nobody willing to replace you. All our whining, sobbing, handwringing and heartbleeding cant change that. Even an election cant change that. So carry on. I hope 40 years from now (it seems thats how long it will take) you're endeavours are successfull and not an excercise in futility.

Point taken regarding equipment of the Afghan army. Point taken that after 30 years of warfare popular support for one side or the other was dismally low and not everyone fought for the Taliban (few did) and not everyone fought to overthrow the Taliban (more but still not lots). But I don't dispute that. Nevertheless they are better equipped, trained, more numerous and probably as motivated now than the Northern Alliance was n in 2002. That suggests to me that the presence of NATO forces is not required to secure the present Afghan government from Taliban takeover. Yet NATO is there to stop the Taliban from taking over. Tthe government line is that the presence of NATO forces is absolutly necessary to stop the Taliban from taking over. In fact more forces need be committed by NATO to stop the Taliban from taking over. I agree with that. So the greater committment of NATO forces will have minimal effect upon the Taliban in terms of Taliban terrorism. Are the Taliban gaining strength or getting weaker? Has the ability of Afghanistan to toss the Taliban out increased or diminished? It seems obvious that the Taliban is gaining strength and Afghanistans capabilities of successfully opposing the Taliban are diminishing. Thus the need for more commitment from NATO. Wich in turn means it that NATO's ability to secure the Afghan government seems to be failing. IE we are losing. So, I have to ask, why is that? It isn't because the Taliban is gaining military might. And it isn't because NATO and the Afghan AF are incapable of militarily securing Afghanistan - they most certainly are. So thier is no military reason for events to be unfolding as they are. Something else is happening. Something non-military.

I, like you, have an active imagination.

So do you.

Qwerty: Ok. I see what you mean now. You are referring to the original post. ...and I am sure you would do terrible things to cats...